On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Schleuss <jschleuss at me.com> wrote:
> I'm kind of curious about this. Why not import those property lines? I'm
> not arguing for them, because it seems like a lot of work. But I note that
> in cities such as Fresno, they are in the map
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.74878/-119.71442> as
> landuse=residential. What if we add all the buildings, all the trees, every
> bench? Why not add property boundaries? I'm thinking 2030 here.
>
Hey Jon,
There has been discussions of why have any boundaries in OSM. The argument
against goes something like "if you can document it on the ground, it
doesn't belong in OSM." It might actually make it easier if admin
boundaries were removed. Nodes wouldn't be attached to boundaries because
the software snapped the way to the boundary. It's a pain to have to
unconnect features that shouldn't be connected.
Layers, which OSM currently has only 1, might help. Putting landuse,
administrative, etc. in separate layers would make it easier and less
cluttered to edit. I believe Mapzen had a project a couple of years ago
looking at moving boundaries to another database. Not sure what happened.
Maybe someone can help.
I believe we need boundaries in OSM. Parcels not so much. Keeping
residential parcels current would be a pain. I do use them to find park
boundaries and plan to start using them for future building address
imports. Not import the parcel, but use the parcel data to determine which
building belongs to an address.
Best,
Clifford
--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160729/04269cbf/attachment.html>